Dr. Roy Spencer’s Keynote Speech at #ICCC9

Dr. Spencer asks the question: What do we really know about Global Warming?

This is from Wednesday morning July 9th.

This is well worth watching, and I get a mention. Some of the graphs he presents are not only hilarious for their satire of the issue, but are valuable in demonstrating that correlation is not causation.

Post navigation

70 thoughts on “Dr. Roy Spencer’s Keynote Speech at #ICCC9”

To see all of the presentations at The Heartland Institute’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change, click on the link below. Patrick Moore’s, to pick out one other than Spencer’s, is excellent.

Dr. Spencer did a wonderful job of explaining where we are at in regards to what we know about “global warming”. This short speech should be shown to schoolchildren around the country to counterbalance the hysteria that they are normally exposed to.

I would like someone to make some of those slides (the charts and graphs) available someplace. I would like to print off some of those graphs in large format and color (maybe use an office supply house to do that), have the charts laminated, and give them to some science teacher friends to hang in their rooms. Can anyone help me on how to do this?

Once again, the speech by Dr. Spencer was outstanding. (and the audio plus camera work was also)

I would like to withdraw a comment I made on this blog about two years ago. I said at that time that causality seemed to run from temperature to the AMO and not the other way around. Since then I’ve acquired a much larger data set and run the tests again, and I was wrong. AMO influences temperature, shifting more heat or less from the ocean to the air. While carbon dioxide accounts for 76% of the variance of temperature since 1850, the AMO accounts for an additional 10%, which is significant. Still doesn’t affect the trend, which is almost all CO2, but it definitely affects the year-to-year variation.

While carbon dioxide accounts for 76% of the variance of temperature since 1850, the AMO accounts for an additional 10%, which is significant. Still doesn’t affect the trend, which is almost all CO2, but it definitely affects the year-to-year variation.

That is an interesting model. It is obviously wrong because changes to CO2 follow changes to global temperature at all time scales. But it is interesting: do you have a link to it?

Spencer is one of the best speakers we have. Completely devoid of the “holier than thou” personality that Lord Monckton sometimes uses that can be a bit irritating.

Another good talk was his “debate” at the ICCC in Washington. I was at the lunch table with Roy, and he was shaking his head at Richard Denning’s acting out of diatomic and CO2’s vibrational modes. Roy was shaking his head saying “I can’t compete with that” but but came up with interesting response about where he agreed and disagreed with Denning.

Barton Paul Levenson says:
…………
I did some research into the AMO too. The AMO can’t influence even the nearby CET in the winter months, not to mention the global temperature (if there is such a thing). The AMO is only reflected in the CET summer months (see LINK ) with no significant uptrend in the CET’s 350 year long record.
The AMO is a delayed consequence of the Arctic atmospheric pressure quasi-periodic variability, preceding the AMO change by some years; and so is the whole of the N. Hemisphere’s temperature variability, which is wrongly attributed to the AMO.
The CO2 factor I will leave to Mr. Courtney, someone who knows and understands far more than I will ever do about the CO2.

Climate change is very real. For example, the average climate of the northern hemisphere is so cold as to cause the ground to be buried under a thousand feet of ice. The cycle of glacier on/glacier off takes place every several hundred thousand years and can be clearly seen in many ways. Even as the science is settled that glaciation has taken place, the causes are still undergoing vigorous debate.

With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that proposes what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.

That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science coincidently converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

I watched several of the sessions live and plan to watch several more as I get a chance. What impressed me was how many of the speakers noted how important the WUWT website and Anthony’s other work is to the debate. Anthony, you are without a doubt a very important central figure in this issue, and I very much appreciate your contribution.

That is an interesting model. It is obviously wrong because changes to CO2 follow changes to global temperature at all time scales.t

“All time scales?” That includes some low hanging fruit, e.g. the last 17-18 years – no temperature change and increasing CO2.

Yes, “All time scales”.

At shortest time scales analyses indicate the delay is between 5 and 9 months and it varies with latitude. This was first observed by Kuo, Lindberg and Thomson who observed the lag is ~5 months at Mauna Loa.
(ref. Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson DJ ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’ Nature, Nature 343, 709 – 714 (22 February 1990); doi:10.1038/343709a0)

Have enjoyed following this conference and listening to keynote speakers.
Perhaps someone can answer this for me:
Along with increased plant life from more atmospheric plant food in recent decades have there been measured increases in oxygen produced by the abundant flora?

Mark says…
I would like someone to make some of those slides (the charts and graphs) available someplace. Can anyone help me on how to do this?
…………………………………………………………..
This might help…nice place to send your friends, too

Richard Courtney, I was not aware that the lag was present in short-term timescales. What are error bars for short-term to longer time scales?

The short-term lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes is between ~5 and ~9 months depending on latitude. The seminal work of Kuo et al. determined the lag at Mauna Loa to be 150 +/- 6 days.

I don’t know a published error estimate of the typical lag of CO2 behind temperature at longer time scales which is indicated by ice core data. Eyeballing suggests about 800 years +/- ~100 years for the Greenland ice cores.

Concluding question by Roy Spencer in his ICCC9 talk, “So, given all this evidence … why aren’t scientists advocating producing MORE carbon dioxide?”

Roy Spencer’s answer to that question and the final statement of his talk, “The driving force behind the global warming debate isn’t science”.

– – – – – – –

Thank you Roy Spencer for contributing to critical analysis of the climate science issues.

I agree that the driving force behind the global warming debate isn’t valid science, but it is what Feynman characterized as the ritual mimicking of science; it is, in his words, a “cargo cult ‘science’. ”

Also, I suggest that it is an attempt to make science subservient to pre-science ideology; an attempt to make science subservient to mere myth.

Thanks Anthony for making this presentation available. Roy Spencer’s succinct summary of the “Global Warming Issue”, is one of the best I have seen for all audiences and I would highly recommended it and its circulation.

Based on the facts: Why aren’t scientists, environmentalists, politicians, the media, and concerned citizens advocating the production of MORE CO2 rather than the insane warmists policies that will not work to produce less or no CO2? The so called skeptics need to thoughtfully change the conversation. Facts and logic matter. The so called skeptics will win every debate if it is fact and logic based.

The real problem is not AGW. The real problem is not CO2 emissions. The real problem is Western countries are wasting trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work (do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions, the conversion of food to biofuel is the worst example that insane policy will lead to starvation and unimaginable loss of habitat if it is not stopped) Nuclear power is the long term answer for most energy requirements unless there is a breakthrough in fundamental physics. The money that is being forced to be spent on green scams, should be spent on education, health care, roads, bridges, high speed internet, nuclear power plant optimized/standardized design, natural gas production, coal plant optimization/standardized design, environmental protection, energy conservation, and so on.

The so called skeptics are saying that warmist’s policy is irrational (there is no AGW/CO2 problem to solve), unsustainable, damaging to the environment, and so on which is quite different to the assertion that we are skeptical about global warming/climate change.

It it that kind of presentation that makes that conference so pleasant and useful.

Sigh… And me on the East Coast when they meet on the West Coast… Maybe the next one will be near somewhere I’m at ;-)

One of the high points of the last few decades was my one attendance in Chicago. Maybe next time.

@William Astley:

It is much more “rational” and makes much more “sense” once you reliaze that it is a very short walk from “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” to “Create a serious crisis on demand to empower your agenda.”

These folks actively work to create a “serious crisis”. All The Time. It is just a ploy to claim otherwise. FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) are the tools used to herd people into the pen.

The short-term lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes is between ~5 and ~9 months depending on latitude. The seminal work of Kuo et al. determined the lag at Mauna Loa to be 150 +/- 6 days.

I don’t know a published error estimate of the typical lag of CO2 behind temperature at longer time scales which is indicated by ice core data. Eyeballing suggests about 800 years +/- ~100 years for the Greenland ice cores.
————————————-
If what you say is true then the lag has changed by some 800years since the ice core measurements.

If this is aphysical effect then this must remain the same. Hopefully you can say what the difference is between co2 and temperature between ice cores and now.

I would speculate that the ice core data is too indeterminate to really show lead or lag.

If what you say is true then the lag has changed by some 800years since the ice core measurements.
If this is aphysical effect then this must remain the same. Hopefully you can say what the difference is between co2 and temperature between ice cores and now.
I would speculate that the ice core data is too indeterminate to really show lead or lag.

Sorry, but try as I may, I cannot make any sense of that so I cannot reply to it.

If you want me to respond it is necessary for you to expand and to clarify each of your three statements.

Concluding question by Roy Spencer in his ICCC9 talk, “So, given all this evidence … why aren’t scientists advocating producing MORE carbon dioxide?”

I wouldn’t advocate more carbon dioxide because of the law of unintended consequences. When there are 7 billion humans, I suspect it’s a good idea to keep our footprint as small as possible within a science-based cost/benefit analysis.

Mark says…
I would like someone to make some of those slides (the charts and graphs) available someplace. Can anyone help me on how to do this?
…………………………………………………………..
This might help…nice place to send your friends, too

Thank you for the link to this fascinating conference. When first I saw Al Gore’s film, I took notes, and I still have them. My comments refer mainly to the flimsy glossing over of information for propaganda purposes – for example, the CO2 we’re producing ‘thickens the atmosphere’, and I wrote that ‘so far, Gore has given no units for the data shown’. I also read his book. Having a solid scientific education myself, I immediately thought Gore’s book the most blatant and skilfully produced propaganda publication I’d ever seen.
Thankfully, I then came across books by S.Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Ian Plimer, Robert Carter, and Roy W. Spencer, and I would like to take a moment to thank these gentlemen for their work in putting across complex ideas in a way that a non-specialist layman can understand. Their help via the printed word has been invaluable.
I’ve often found myself wondering why I’ve spend so much time reading books and other publications on the alleged man-made global warming, as well as visiting WUWT and Jo Nova’s website.
I’ve contributed letters to newspaper discussions on the subject, and written letters to Members of Parliament (MPs) here in the UK. I’ve also opposed planned wind turbines by writing to local government officials.
The reason for doing all this is almost certainly because this twisting of science is something I feel strongly about. Also, if truth be told, the smug arrogance of the activists, including those with university degrees who should know better, irritates me and there’s nothing better than ‘putting one over’ them in print!
I’ve noticed that whenever real-world data is presented, no figures are ever produced by these people as a riposte. The points made are sidestepped. This has been the case with a Member of the European Parliament I’ve written to, and also my regional Member of the British Parliament.
The Heartlands Conference gives me a warm feeling of hope.

Ulric Lyons says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:29 am
………..
Yes, to a lesser degree, since the spring and autumn are transitions between the winter (negligible correlation) and summer (high correlation).
Instead quoting a lot of numbers I have added info to the LINK .
Sadly, very few people are interested in the CET (including those directly affected by it) and even fewer do have in depth knowledge of its main features.

Great speech by Dr. Spencer. At 15 minutes or so he mentions the source for one of the graphs. (KNMI Climate Explorer) ” out of Denmark I think” . Well that has to be the Netherlands.
KNMI is the abbreviation of ” Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut” . (Royal Dutch/Netherlands Meteorogical Institute) founded in 1854 as one of the first of its kind.

“In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.”

So essentially your keynote speaker is also an advocate for Intelligent Design.

No, it speaks nothing. This statement is that of a “lazy writer” – with nothing to say and not knowing how to say it you have contributed a meaningless cliché. If you don’t know anything about Earth’s systems why not spend your time reading?

> So essentially your keynote speaker is also an advocate for Intelligent Design.

I have never heard Roy “advocate” for his beliefs in how life on Earth evolved. I have heard him state that he can’t resolve the age of Earth (or at least since life evolved) with its current complexity. So he concludes it had help. Feel free to agree, disagree, or be outraged.

I don’t see any sign that has affected his science, so I disagree, but still celebrate his science.

Siberian Husky: Looking at Dr. Spencer’s biographical details in his 2010 book ‘ The Great Global Warming Blunder’, I see that he’s a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He’s a former senior scientist in climate studies at NASA, and now heads the U.S. science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He’s the co-developer of the original satellite method for the precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites, with numerous publications to his name. If you’ve taken the trouble to watch the video, you’ll see that he was computer modelling hurricanes years ago, so he’s no stranger to the method.
What do his religious views matter – or yours? Looking at his considerable achievements it’s very clear that he’s made valuable contributions to the science of climatology.
And what have you contributed, exactly? Where are your figures to contradict those real-world measurements he presents?

I don’t understand religion at all. Makes no sense whatsoever to me scientifically. However if I ruled out anyone’s opinion on science that also had religious beliefs then I would have have almost no scientists left to listen to.

Also I see very little difference between modern environmental movement and the Catholic Church. They worship different gods and feel guilty about different things but the underlying religion seems the same to me.

We are all irrational in some ways and have biases. However biases and religious beliefs do not change the physics of the atmosphere or the global temperature

Just making the observation that the most high profile proponents in your camp are either oil industry paid schills, serial deniers of smoking and cancer/acid rain/ozone holes/global warming, or libertarian/religious nutters. Any “Scientist” who believes in intelligent design doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously about anything. It speaks to credibility.

Siberian Husky says “most of…” You mean, 97%? Just so we’re clear, on a subject (existence of and capacity of God) which science has no proof either way, someone who disagrees with you doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously about anything. You may think you don’t, but you do believe in God, my friend; you simply think you’re…Him!

This is the first opportunity I’ve had to watch any of the presentations from the conference.

How can ANY even biased MSM “Reporter” watch Dr. Roy Spencer’s presentation, and then try to characterize the “skeptic” folks as a bunch of whackos. Roy could have couched his presentation of his slides, with different direction; but to anybody but the dumbest of the dumb, including the US Senate committees, he has spoken to, the message of the graphs, is clear to anyone with more than a 4-H club education.

The party line catastrophism simply doesn’t hold water.

And for those with a 4-H club education; well they probably know better than many others, that the Ag system, is happy for the extra CO2.

Yet someone at CNN or lookalikes, will try to paint this as a bunch of kooks.

The climate modellers; Peter Humbug and friends, will have a hard time , trying to explain their answer to the drunk’s query; ” Wha’ happen ?”

As Yogi Berra would likely say; “Prediction is very simple, especially about the past !”

“In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.”

So essentially your keynote speaker is also an advocate for Intelligent Design.

Speaks volumes doesn’t it?……””””””

Well SH, that is one giant leap of faith, on your part, to equate, as in, identical to; “Creation” , and “Intelligent Design.”

Creation, we know for sure, as in an existence theorem, actually happened. Well some of us call it the “Big Bang”. I dunno, whether it was a big bang or not. If it started from nothing, as they suggest, it was likely a very small even sub microscopic bang. Maybe a “poof!”

Well that’s a prevailing theory; something happened; I doubt it was very big.

Well I am sure there are the Fred Hoyle disciples, who think it always was, so nothing actually happened. Well if it did, nobody remembers. It’s hard to remember when nothing happened.

But intelligent design implies more than “something happened” or even “nothing happened”. The inference is “Somebody did something”.

Well no harder to swallow, than either something or nothing happened.

Lots of stupidity in “intelligent design.”

Take the Borneo, and Sumatra Rain Forests. All life in those forests, including the forests themselves, is evidently ultimately dependent on figs, and fig trees.

Well we know a thing or two about figs, since that was our original free clean green renewable energy, before fire, and fossils.

The figs and fig trees are pollinated by wasps. NOTHING ELSE can pollinate those fig trees.

Not just any wasp; the fig wasp. It is the only wasp or creature of any kind, whose head is the right shape and size to squeeze through the opening in the end of a fig. She’s a female, since only females have wings, and can fly to the fig. Squeezing in that mini cavern is a tight squeeze, and she strips her wings off in the process, but the pollen on her body does its thing on the fig as she squirms inside. There she lays her eggs, and dies.

Eggs hatch and the grubs eat parts of the fig. There are males and females, but only females have wings. So they mate inside the fig, and then the females eat their way out and fly off to another tree, or another fig, carrying more pollen with them. Males got no wings, and already mated, so ain’t going nowhere, but to bird guano.

So that’s how the fig wasp propagates itself; THE ONLY WAY, and its the only way for the fig tree to propagate. Two disparate species, who can’t survive without the other, and the whole forest habitat depends on them.

So what kind of a nut job, would call that intelligent design. Pretty stupid if you ask me. About as smart as Giant Panda living on one species of bamboo, only.

Any “Scientist” who believes in intelligent design doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously about anything. It speaks to credibility.

=======================================================================
Does it?
This world we live in is governed by natural laws. A scientist who is honest in his handling of those natural laws is credible as a scientist no matter what he believes is the source of them.
So what if Dr. Spencer questions the consensus and doesn’t accept that “the science is settled” regarding the origin of all that surrounds us. At least he doesn’t worship tree rings as all knowing.
Find a flaw in what he said is happening now regarding CAGW and the hype surrounding it.

Timestamped Notes of talk byDr. Jay Lehr, Heartland Inst. Science Director.
Ground Water Hydrologist. Owner of world record for jumping out of an airplane every month for 32 straight years. “Record for Stupidity”.

27:20 – Reasons for humans not responsibily for Earth’s temperature on back of business card. Talk to 3 people a day while traveling. Junk science cherry picking.
32:40 – The primary force we battle is the US EPA. I Don’t think we can reduce the power of EPA, We have to Replace the US EPA. I have a plan.
34:40 – The plan in detail (check Heartland.org website) 4 pages.
35:15 – There is no one with a greater right to propose a plan to replace EPA in Washington than I. For I played the greatest role in America to establish it. 1968 I helped the Bureau of Water Hygiene into something stronger. No regrets for what I started, but I’ve been doing penance for 40 years.
36:30 – William Ruckelshaus first and biggest mistake: banning DDT. Responsible for deaths of over 100 million people.
37:10 – Safety net of regulations. Clean Water, Clean Air, Mining, … seven laws. “We did nothing in the 70s that was NOT effective.” “I would argue since 1980 there has not been a single” law, reg, “that has had any value.” Superfund was first of these disasters. Endangered Species Act, too.
38:30 – My Plan: Replace Washington EPA with Committee of the Whole of the 50 States — In Topeka, Kansas – the geographic center of the USA. “Government is best when it is local.”
39:50 – Phase out US EPA (Wash DC) over 5 years. 50 state agencies. Each State sends 3 delegates. They will elect a Chairman for 3 years, no more.
41:00 – “No one in this room could name for me the 14 offices of US EPA.” Phase out as follows:
“Over the next 5 years, you will all lose your jobs. Some of you will go back to your states.” The states will get $20 million/year/state. Budget for EPA is $8.2 billion. New plan: $1 Billion goes to states, $1 goes to Topeka HQ and research. $6.2 billion is saved.
42:30 – First two offices to go: Office of Indian Affairs. And Office of Indian Environment. Move them to Bureau of Indian Affairs, with 1/2 of budget.
43;10 – Year 2: Move offices of policy, admin, enforcement.
Year 3: Move Air and Radiation, Solid Waste
Year 4: Move Water, Chemical Contamination
Year 5: Move Chief Council, CFO, Env. Information Officer, Administrator.
A very smooth transitions to shut down Washington and Regional Offices. The States should be thrilled. They will have a say in everything and more money.
44:45 – Over these 5 years, the Committee of the Whole will review every regulation the states are forced to operate by US EPA. They will have the right to revise, eliminate, delegate to States, or advise Congress for changes. Global Warming is about to become the biggest thing EPA has ever done. The States will embrace the phase in. I think Congress will embrace it.
46;30 I am a recruiter. Ex-Navy. Take the plan. Talk to people. Journey of 1000 miles begins with a step. Take that step. Send it around.
Nobody LIKES EPA. They think we NEED it. The Plan does not eliminate environmental protection. We will lose nothing but 15,000 people and $6 billion in budget.

Henry says
He is wrong on that count, maybe it is because his data set is wrong as well.
My data set [on minima] shows there is no man made warming, whatsoever. Or it is so small that it is not even measurable.